> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Stuart Williams
> Sent: 09 September, 2004 17:19
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> Cc: michael@neonym.net; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: "information resource"
>
>
>
> Hello Patrick,
>
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: ext Stuart Williams [mailto:skw@hp.com]
> >>Sent: 09 September, 2004 13:09
> >>To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); michael@neonym.net
> >>Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> >>Subject: RE: "information resource"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>The fact that both I and TimBL come to different conclusions
> >>>based on the same document indicates that there is a problem
> >>>with the definition of "information resource".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I think that the document takes no position on whether or
> not an HTTP
> >>URI such as the one you cite may or may not be used to
> denote/identify
> >>an actual dog.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Per the literal reading, no. My concern was about the potential
> >for reading additional meaning into AWWW based on the choice
> >of words for the term "information resource", beyond its actual
> >definition.
> >
> >
> Ok... so it is not what the document actually says that troubles you,
> but the potential for folks to read more deeply than intended
> into the
> concept currently labelled "information resource". Is that a
> fair summary?
Yes.
>
> >My proposal is, and has been, that either the distinction/term
> >is not needed, or that a different term (label) be associated
> >with that distinction/definition.
> >
> >
> So... would a different label for the concept, assuming we
> find one that
> met with general approval, address your original comment [1] to your
> satisfaction? ie. the concept stays, but we give it a
> different label .
Yes.
> I think that you are saying here and below that it would -
> although it's
> clear that you would prefer that no distinction were made.
Or that, the distinction is so fundamental that no special
term is needed.
It is enough, I think, to simply make clear the distinction
between resources in general versus resources which have
web accessible representations, and that the web machinery
is only concerned with the latter. Once you make that distinction,
nothing more need be said.
Though, I'm also not opposed to a distinct term to refer to
the class of resources having web accessible representations.
Applying KISS, it seems that either "web resource" or
"web accessible resource" would be the most obvious choices
(the former being more concise, and hence more convenient).
> >The use of the words "information resource" can be construed
> >as implicitly supporting TimBL's position rather than taking
> >a neutral stance pending resolution of httpRange-14.
> >
> >
> Apart from the choice of label for the concept we have currently
> labelled "information resource"... is there anything else
> that you have
> found in the document that could be construed as an implicit
> resolution
> of httpRange-14?
Not that I would be inclined to make a case about.
The discussion of "secondary resources" has the potential
for fueling that debate, but I have nothing against the
definition of such a class of resources, on a technical
basis, nor with the way that class is defined and presented
in AWWW.
There may be dragons lurking in there somewhere, but I
can't say I can point one out ;-)
>
> >My explicit proposal would be to replace the words
> "information resource"
> >with either "web resource" or "web accessible resource" which IMO
> >would coincide more precisely with the actual definition and not
> >potentially imply any position relating to httpRange-14.
> >
> >
> This again suggests, well more than suggests, that a change in label
> could address the comment to your satisfaction.
It would. And I would hope that that is also clear from my
original post.
>
> <snip/>
>
> >> > The TAG needs to make a decision on this issue.
> >> >
> >> > Either "resources" (a) can be anything that can be
> named, including
> >> > abstract concepts, astrological bodies, persons, etc. and URIs
> >> > can denote anything or (b) they must be constrained to
> things that
> >> > correspond to "bodies of information" which can be expressed in a
> >> > digital form accessible via the web, and URIs can denote
> only such
> >> > bodies of information.
> >>
> >>AWWW has taken a position on that. AWWW says:
> >>
> >>"We do not limit the scope of what might be a resource. The term
> >>"resource" is used in a general sense for whatever might be
> >>identified
> >>by a URI."
> >>
> >>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I appreciate the literal wording of AWWW on this matter. I'm
> concerned
> >simply with implicit meaning or potential interpretations which
> >extend beyond the literal wording.
> >
> >
> A natural problem with natural language...
>
> >This particular post to which you are replying is as much a response
> >to TimBL's interpretation of the term "information resource" per AWWW
> >as to the potential for confusion about the meaning of this term.
> >
> >
> I understand that, and TimBL has been challenged by others to support
> his interpretation by reference to the document itself. There
> may be a
> separate thread to be had on that topic (and I suspect you can find
> several ready made such threads in this archive :-)) but the topic in
> hand on this thread is or should be about what if anything needs to
> change in the document to satisfactorally address your comment.
Agreed. I am happy to restrict this thread to the issue of the
choice of label for the concept in question, and not to deeper
issues relating to httpRange-14 or other matters.
> >> > The latest draft of AWWW still attempts to accomodate both
> >> > views, leaving far too much to interpretation -- and
> >> > perpetuating the present chaos by allowing those holding view (a)
> >> > and those holding view (b) to both reference the same document
> >> > as supposedly supporting their view/interpretation and
> use the same
> >> > terms as defined by that document -- yet *still* in actuality
> >> > disagree about critically fundamental aspects of web
> architecture.
> >>
> >>AFAICT tell AWWWW clearly takes position (a) above. Can you show me
> >>something in the document that advances position (b)?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The choice of the words "information resource" as the label for the
> >term used to differentiate web accessible resources from resources
> >in general.
> >
> >
> So again, a different term label has potential to address
> your comment?
Yes.
Regards,
Patrick